KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering

Structural Engineering

Vol. 8, No. 1 / January 2004

pp. 35~41

The Effect of Initial Rust on the Bond Strength of Reinforcement

By Byung Duck Lee*, Kook Han Kim**, Hwan Gu Yu***, and Tae Song Ahn****

Abstract
An experimental investigation on the relationship between corrosion of reinforcement and bond strength in pull-out test specimen has been
conducted to establish the allowable limit of rust of reinforcement in the construction field. The reinforcing bars used in this study were rusted
before embedded in pull-out test specimen. The first component of this experiment is to make reinforcing bar rust electrically based on
Faradays theory to be 2, 4, 6, 8 and 10% of reinforcing bar weight. For estimation of the amount of rust by weight, Clarkes solution and shot
blasting were adopted and compared. Parameters also include 24 and 45 MPa of concrete compressive strengths and diameter of reinforcing
bar (16, 19 and 25 mm). Pull-out tests were carried out according to KS F 2441 and ASTM C 234 to investigate the effect of the degree of rust
on bond strength. It is found from the test results that the test techniques for corrosion of bar used in this study is relatively effective and
correct. Results show that up to 2% of rust increases the bond strength regardless of concrete strength and diameter of reinforcing bar like the
existing data. It might result from the roughness due to rust. As expected, the bond strength increases as compressive strength of concrete
increases and the diameter of bar decreases.
Keywords: corrosion, artificial accelerated potentiometric corrosion, bond strength, slip, pullout test

1. Introduction

2. Experimental Program

The most of reinforcing bar stored at construction field is likely

to corrode due to the direct exposure to outdoors. However, the
current specification is based on bond characteristics of clean
reinforcing bar and previous research have been also carried out
often embed in clean reinforcing bars. Therefore, it has been in
conflict between contractor and inspector to use corroded reinforcing
bar in construction sites. Thus, it is very important problem to
decide whether the corroded reinforcing bar can be used from
efficiency standpoint or that should not be used from safety
standpoint.
According to previous research results about corrosion of the
reinforcing bar (Al-Sulaimani et al., 1990; Malvar, 1995), when the
corrosion level of reinforcing bar is small, the bond strength between
the reinforcing bar and surrounding concrete increases with an
increase of corrosion. Accordingly, if the results of this study gives
the allowable corrosion level with no deterioration of mechanical
behavior of reinforced concrete, this study will be not only expected
to contribute to the effectiveness of concrete construction but also to
cost-saving.
The main purpose of this investigation is to suggest the allowable
corrosion level of reinforcing bar by test without decrease of bond
force between reinforcing bar and surrounding concrete. The
reinforcing bars used in this study are rusted by artificial accelerated
potentiometric corrosion method based on Faradays law in order to
induce exact amount of the rust and to reduce the time of rust
production. The calculation of degree of rust is conducted with
weight loss method in accordance with the ASTM G1-81 Clarkes
solution method and the Shot blasting method.

2.1. Test Parameters

The adopted test parameters to measure the corrosion amount are
the nominal diameter of reinforcing bars and the amount of corrosion
and rust removal methods (Clarkes solution and Shot blasting).
To test the bond strength between the reinforcing bar and
surrounding concrete, parameters includes compressive strength of
concrete and diameter of reinforcing bar corresponding development
length for pull-out test. Pull-out tests were carried out according to
KS F 2441 and ASTM C 234 to investigate the effect of the amount
of rust on the bond behavior between reinforcing bar and concrete.
The prepared concrete specimens for testing bond strength in
consideration of those variables are totals to 108 specimens. The test
parameters used in this study are summarized in Table 1.
2.2. Materials and Mix Proportions
2.2.1. Deformed Reinforcing Bar
The reinforcing bars used for corrosion test in this study are based
on deformed bar. The diameters of deformed reinforcing bars were
selected among those used in actual construction field. Their
designations are D16, 19, and 25, respectively.
The high-strength deformed reinforcing bars were used, which
were tested in accordance with KS B 0801 (Test pieces for tensile
test for metallic materials) and KS B 0802 (Method of tensile test for
metallic materials).
2.2.2. Cement, Aggregate, and Admixtures
Type I ordinary portland cement was used. Fine aggregate was
river sand and coarse aggregate was crushed stone with specific

*Chief Researcher, Korea Highway Corporation, Hwaseong, Korea (E-mail: Lbdbhy@freeway.co.kr)

**Section Chief, Korea Highway Corporation, Seongnam, Korea (E-mail: khkim@freeway.co.kr)
***Section Chief, Korea Highway Corporation, Youngcheon, Korea (E-mail: cookie@freeway.co.kr)
****Member, Research Director, Korea Highway Corporation, Hwaseong, Korea (E-mail: CONC@freeway.co.kr)

Vol. 8, No. 1 / January 2004

35

Byung Duck Lee, Kook Han Kim, Hwan Gu Yu, and Tae Song Ahn
Table 1. Test Parameters for Corrosion Measurement and Bond
Strength
Parameters

Variable for corrosion test Bond strength test

Diameter of deformed bar

D16, D19, D25

D16, D19, D25

Level of corrosion (%)

2, 4, 6, 8, 10%

0, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10

Clakers solution
Shot blasting

24, 45

Removal methods of rust

Concrete compressive
strength (MPa)

gravity 2.63, and the maximum aggregate size of 25 mm.

AE water reducing agent (Lignin type) and superplasticizer
(Lignin type) was used for high strength concrete. The amount of AE
water reducing agent and superplasticizer used in this study were
initially determined on the basis of recommended content by the
supplier and then adjusted further to get a required strength through
mix design and actual testing of mixed concrete. These amount were
0.3% and 0.8% of the unit cement content.
2.2.3. Mix Proportions of Concrete
In order to estimate the variation of bond strength with concrete
strength, specified average strength was 24 MPa and 45 MPa. The
mix proportion used in this test is listed in Table 2.
2.3. Corrosion Methods of Deformed Bar
2.3.1. Test Methods
2.3.1.1. Preparing Deformed Bar
First, deformed reinforcing bar was cut into 1 m length using cutter
and cutting surface was finished flat and then the length of the
deformed bar is measured up to 1mm by ruler. Finally, the weight of
deformed reinforcing bar was measured up to 1/100 g using highsensitivity electronic balance (range : 4,000~1/100 g). The measured
length and weight were later used to determine the amount of
corrosion. After the measurement, deformed bars were epoxy-coated
under ventilated low-moisture condition as shown in Fig. 1. The total
5 cm was left uncoated for electrical connecting to a power source.
The actual length to be corroded was 80 cm although the total length
of deformed bar was 1 m. The length of deformed bar used for the

Fig. 1. Schematic Diagram of Deformed Bar for Corrosion Testing

measurement of the amount of corrosion was 70 cm. The surface

coated with epoxy was covered with Parafilm , in order to prevent
the possible damage of epoxy coating during storage or moving. Fig.
1 below shows the Schematic diagram of deformed bar for corrosion
testing.
2.3.1.2. Corroding Method of Deformed Bar
(1) Faradays law of electrolysis
The forced corroding method of deformed bar used in this study is
based on Faradays law of electrolysis. Faradays law of electrolysis
is; The amount of chemical reaction caused by the flow of current is
proportional to the amount of electricity passed. The following Eq.
(1) is indicated the Faradays equation.
ItM
unF
w = ---------- t = ----------nF
IM

(1)

where,
w = mass loss in g, weight of corrosion products removed by
electrolyte solution during time(sec)
I = current, A
t = applying time of the current(A)
M = molecular weight of the metal, g/mol, in case of deformed
reinforcing bar, 55.85 g/mol
n = electron per molecule oxidized or reduced, in case of
deformed reinforcing bar, 2
F = Faraday constant, 96,500 C/mol or 96,500A . s/mol
(2) Constitution of current supplying circuit board and corrosion
cell
For artificial corrosion of the deformed bar from Faradays law of
electrolysis, the most important part might be the current supplying
circuit which can apply the constant electric current(A) for certain
period of time(t). The electric current of 30.2A was applied to each
deformed bar from the circuit used in this study.
The corrosion cell was made of acrylate board for the corrosion
reaction to be observed outside. The cell was divided into 18 subsells
to corrode 18 deformed reinforcing bars simultaneously. The size of
cell was 12764101 cm and that of each subcell was 2020100
cm. A waterproofing sealers was applied between subcells to prevent
the flow of electrolyte. Fig. 2 shows the corrosion set up in the cell.
The deformed bar used as an anode was immersed into electrolyte
by hanging specimen mount using a grip or connector. A coil-type
stainless steel was adopted as a cathode as shown in Fig. 2. The
anode was connected to positive terminal(+) of power source while
the cathode to the negative terminal(). In the electrolyzation reaction,
the cross-section of the cathode should be more than twice for the
cathode reaction not to limit the whole corrosion reaction.
Accordingly, the stainless steel used for each subcell was the plate of
305,0000.3 mm, which was then made into a coil. 5%-Nacl
solution was used as electrolyte which was prepared by first
dissolving Nacl 50 g in 900 ml of water and then making 1,000 ml
by adding more water.

Table 2. Mix Proportion of Concrete

Unit mix content (kg/m3)

Target strength
(MPa)

Gmax
(mm)

Slump
(cm)

W/C
(%)

S/A
(%)

Water

Cement

Fine aggregate

Coarse
aggregate

24

25

13.2

41

43

167

406

761

1095

45

25

16.3

36

43

167

463

741

1066

36

KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering

The Effect of Initial Rust on the Bond Strength of Reinforcement

Table 4. Preparing of Clarkes Solution

Fig. 2. Cell Apparatus for Artificial Accelerated Potentiometric Corrosion

of Deformed Bar
Table 3. Expected Amount and Time of Corrosion (with an applied
current of 3A)
Description
Corrosion
amount,
(g)
Corroding
time,
(sec)

Size of
deformed
reinforcing bar

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

D16

24.96

49.92

74.88

99.84

124.80

D19

36.00

72.00

108.00

144.00

180.00

D25

63.68

127.36

191.04

254.72

318.40

D16

28751

57502

D19

41468

82936 124404 165872 207340

D25

73353 146706 220059 293412 366765

Hydrochloric acid (HCl, Specific gravity 1.19, 38%)

1 l

Antimony trioxide (Sb2O3)

20 g

Stannous chloride (SnCl2)

50 g

Temperature

room

Dip in time

up to 25 min

surface of deformed bar. One of them is the removal method by

Clarkes solution (ASTM G1-81 : Standard practice for preparing,
cleaning, and evaluating corrosion test specimens), which was in
accordance with ASTM G1-81-7.7.2. The preparing method of
Clarkes solution is given in Table 4 (ASTM G1-81, 1981).
First, the deformed reinforcing bars are dipped in the prepared
Clarkes solution for a certain period of time. Then, the deformed bar
specimens are rinsed with clean water, with a non-polishing
tool(dried patch) and weighed. The weight of deformed bar is
measured up to 1/100 g by using high-sensitivity electron balance.
Therefore, the amount of rust removed by Clarkers solution was
calculated according to Eq. (2).
(3) Removal of rust and calculation of rust amount by Shot blasting
Another method of the rust removal of deformed bar was Shot
blasting machine. The metal balls used in this study were made by
cutting piano steel wire with 0.8 mm pieces. The jet velocity of Shot
blasting is 3,000 rpm and the operation time of rust removal for the
corroded deformed bar was determined by the preliminary operation
with 2 minutes. The level of corrosion by Shot blasting was
calculated as the following Eq. (2).

86253 115004 143755

The specified amounts of corrosion were 2, 4, 6, 8, 10%, each of

which was the ratio of weight loss to original deformed bar. The
duration of constant current supply was calculated in accordance to
an Eq. (1). Table 3 shows the expected amount of corrosion and
supply duration for each deformed bar. The deformed reinforcing bar
after the complition of forced corrosion reaction was removed from
Nacl solution, washed with clean water and dried about one hour in
the shade before the fabrication of the specimen for bond strength
test. The amount of corrosion of each dried bar was measured right
before the preparing of the specimen.

2.4. Bond Test Methods between Deformed Bar and Concrete

The test of bond strength is basically conducted in accordance with
Pull-out test of Testing method for comparing concrete on the basis
of the bond developed with reinforcing bar of the standards of the
KS F 2441 and ASTM C 234. The test specimens consist of cubes
with the size of 150150150 mm. However, in case of testing of the
bond strength according to this methods, the cone type failure of
concrete is apt to be taken place at the point where deformed bar is
pulled out. To prevent this failure, a certain length of deformed bar at
both the loaded and unloaded ends of the specimen are prepared to
pipes not to be occurred adhesion. The dimension and bond length of

2.3.1.3. Corrosion Measurement and Rust Removal Methods of

Deformed Reinforcing Bar
(1) Calculation of theoretical corrosion amount by Faradays law
The amount of rust of deformed reinforcing bar was calculated by
weight in according to Eq. (1) based on the Faradays law. Therefore,
the levels of corrosion by Faradays equation law are calculated as
the following Eq. (2).
W
Cfr = ------f 100 ( % )
W

(2)

where, Cfr = the corrosion ratio, %

Wf = mass loss in g, weight of corrosion products removed
by Clarkes solution or Shot blasting
W = origin metal weight, g
(2) Removal of rust and calculation of rust amount by Clarkes
solution
Two types of methods were adopted for the removal of rust on the
Vol. 8, No. 1 / January 2004

37

Fig. 3. Schematic Drawing of the Specimen for Bond Strength

Byung Duck Lee, Kook Han Kim, Hwan Gu Yu, and Tae Song Ahn
Table 5. Dimension and Bond Length for Bond Strength Specimens
Description

Size of concrete specimens

(cm)

Length of bonded part

(4D, cm)

D 16

151515

6.40

D 19

151515

7.64

D 25

151515

10.20

Fig. 5. Bond Stress-slip Curve in Reinforced Concrete

Fig. 4. Test Apparatus for Bond Strength

these specimens are listed as following in Fig. 3 and Table 5.

The test set-up for bond strength is made by modifying the
measurement apparatus of KS F 2441 and ASTM C 234 (ASTM,
1991), which is illustrated in Fig. 4. To measure the amount of slip of
embedded deformed reinforcing bar, the displacement transducer
with 0.01 mm resolution is set up on both the unloaded and loaded
end (see Fig. 4). The pull-out test is conducted using Universal
Testing Machine(UTM) of 100 tonf capacity and loading was
applied at a rate of 1 mm/min through displacement control.

3. Test Results and Discussion

3.1. Corrosion of Deformed Reinforcing Bar
In this study, 3 specimens for each experimental variable were
tested and the results are shown in Table 6. As shown in Table 6, the
ratio of rust formed by artificial accelerated corroding method was
little higher than theoretical one irrespective of the rust removal
methods such as Clarkes solution and Shot blasting and the nominal
diameters of deformed reinforcing bars. The reason is thought to be
that additional source of corrosion other than D. C. voltage was in
artificial accelerated corroding method seemed to exist.
Table 6. The Variation of Corrosion Ratio with Two Rust Removal
Methods
Description

3.2. Bond Test Results

3.2.1. Bond Stress-slip Relationship with Various Factors
Generally, all deformed reinforcing bars show bond stress-slip
relationship as shown in Fig. 5. However, the slip values s1 and s2
with bond stresses s1 and s2 are varying in accordance with the
nominal diameter of reinforcing bar. Bond stress s0 is attributed to
chemical adhesion and friction at interface between the deformations
part of reinforcing bar and the surrounding concrete while the
increment of bond stress from s0 to s1 to mechanical interaction
between deformations of the bar and the surrounding concrete,
before the failure surface of concrete is cracked.
Therefore, such increment between s0 and s1 becomes apparent
only when deformation spacing is small. The increase of bond stress
from s1 to s2 is ascribed to the mechanical interaction between
deformations of the reinforcing bar and the surrounding concrete
after loading is exerted on failure surface of concrete. Slip extension
rate defined as (s2-s1)/(s1 -s0) will increase with the increase of
concrete strength and so will the increasing rate of bond stress.
The test results are shown in Figs. 6(a)~(f). Yield plateau for D-16
deformed reinforcing bar was not shown because of narrow spacing
between s1 and s2. For D-19 deformed bar, ideal bond stress-slip
curve is obtained and slip at ultimate bond stress is high. For D-25
deformed reinforcing bar, s1 is very small to be superimposed on s0
actually. In general, ultimate bond stress and slip extension rate
increase with decrease of nominal diameter of bar irrespective of
concrete strength or the amount of rust.
Ultimate bond stress for the same nominal diameter of deformed
reinforcing bar increases with increasing of concrete strength
irrespective of the amount of rust and so does the slip value(s2) at the
point of ultimate bond stress due to increase of slip extension rate.
The bond stress-slip relationship with the amount of rust of
reinforcing bar is shown in Figs. 7(a)~(f), which show a little
discrepancies among various nominal diameters of reinforcing bars.
For D-16 deformed reinforcing bar, ultimate bond stresses of 2% and
4% corroded reinforcing bars are greater than that of 0% corroded
reinforcing bar. For D-19 deformed reinforcing bar, ultimate bond
stress of 2% corroded reinforcing bar is greater than that of 0%
corroded one irrespective of concrete strength. For D-25 deformed
reinforcing bar, similar trends are observed.

Amount of rust (Clarkes solution/Shot blasting), (%)

2

10

D 16

2.39/2.36

4.53/4.47

6.38/6.46

8.21/8.17 10.48/10.28

D 19

2.31/1.98

4.94/4.90

6.90/6.72

8.31/8.60 10.64/10.61

D 25

2.76/2.90

4.94/4.89

6.78/6.99

8.94/8.66 10.63/10.55

3.2.2. The Relationship between the Amount of Rust and Bond

Stress
The ultimate bond stresses of 3 different deformed reinforcing bars
with the amount of rust are shown in Table 7. The ratios of ultimate
bond stress of the deformed reinforcing bars with various amount of

38

KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering

The Effect of Initial Rust on the Bond Strength of Reinforcement

Fig. 6. (a) ~ (f)

rust to that with 0% corrosion are shown in Figs. 8(a)~(c).

Ultimate bond stress of 2% corroded deformed bars is greater than
that of 0% corroded deformed bars irrespective of nominal diameters
of deformed bar and concrete strength. For D-19 deformed bar
embedded normal strength concrete, ultimate bond stress of 4%
corroded deformed bars is lower than that of 0% corroded deformed
bars. Although, ultimate bond stress of bars with corrosion more than
6% is sometimes greater than that of 0% corroded deformed bars, it
is general tendency that bond strength of bars with corrosion more
than 6% is lower than that of 0% corroded deformed bars. For D-25
deformed bar embedded in high strength concrete, ultimate bond
stress of 2, 4, 6, 8, 10% corroded deformed bars become higher than
that of 0% corroded deformed bars. It might resulted from the
mechanical interaction between deformations and surrounding
concrete in high strength concrete which is different with that in
normal strength concrete. However, further study for local interaction
between deformations and surrounding concrete to know the
Vol. 8, No. 1 / January 2004

movement precisely is seemed to be needed.

For the effects of concrete strength on bond strength, the rate of
change in bond stress with the amount of rust in high strength
concrete is lower than that in normal strength concrete irrespective of
nominal diameter of reinforcing bar. It might be concluded from the
results that there is no reduction in bond stress of the bars with less
than 2% corrosion irrespective of nominal diameters and concrete
strength. However, with further corrosion, the bond stress
declines consistently until it becomes negligible for about 4, 6, 8,
10% corrosion. It is similar to previous research results (AlSulaimani et al., 1990). This can be explained on the basis of
increased surface roughness of reinforcing bar with the growth of
firm rust, which tends to enhance the holding capacity of the
reinforcing bar.

39

3.2.3. Variation of Failure Mode with the Amount of Rust

In this study, in high strength reinforced concrete, concrete failure

Byung Duck Lee, Kook Han Kim, Hwan Gu Yu, and Tae Song Ahn

Fig. 7. (a) ~ (f)

Table 7. The Ultimate Bond Stress at Maximum Load
Description

Bond stress(MPa), (Normal strength / High strength)

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

D 16

13.1/22.7

14.6/23.5

16.5/24.2

11.5/22.5

10.4/22.0

8.2/22.5

D 19

9.9/15.8

14.5/20.1

9.0/16.2

8.9/15.8

8.9/13.8

7.5/13.0

D 25

7.3/8.0

8.2/9.1

7.4/8.9

6.3/9.0

6.5/10.2

7.4/9.4

is not observed only for 8% and 10% corroded D-16 deformed bar.
However, in normal strength reinforced concrete, concrete failure
was not occurred for D-16 deformed bar with 6, 8 and 10% corrosion

and D-19 deformed bar with 0% corrosion.

40

KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering

The Effect of Initial Rust on the Bond Strength of Reinforcement

Fig. 8. Relative Ultimate Bond Stress to That of 0% Corrosion

4. Conclusions
(1) The amount of rust formed by artificial accelerated corroding
method was a little higher than theoretical one irrespective of
the nominal diameters of deformed bars and the rust removal
methods such as Clarkes Solution and Shot Blasting. It might
result from the additional source of corrosion other than D. C.
voltage was in artificial accelerated corroding method.
(2) The amount of rust produced by two different removal
methods (dipping in Clarkes Solution and Shot Blasting) was
almost same. The difference between the measured amount of
rust and the theoretical one became smaller with a decrease of
nominal diameters of bars and its decreased average ratio to
theoretical one was about be 13%.
(3) For the effects of nominal diameter on bond stress-slip
relationship, ultimate bond stress and slip extension rate
increased with a decrease of nominal diameters regardless of
concrete strength or the amount of rust.
(4) For the effects of concrete strength on bond stress-slip
relationship, ultimate bond stress of deformed bar with same
nominal diameter increased with increase of concrete strength
irrespective of the amount of rust of deformed bar.
(5) The effects of the amount of rust on bond stress-slip
relationship show a little difference for different nominal
diameters of deformed bars. For D-16 deformed bar embedded
in both high strength and normal strength, ultimate bond
stresses of 2% and 4% corroded deformed bar are greater than
that of 0% corroded deformed bar. For D-19 deformed bar,
ultimate bond stress of 2% corroded deformed bar is greater
than that of 0% corroded deformed bar irrespective of concrete
Vol. 8, No. 1 / January 2004

strength. For D-25 deformed bar embedded in high strength

concrete, ultimate bond stress of 2, 4, 6, 8, 10% corroded
deformed bars become higher than that of 0% corroded
deformed bars. A proper amount of rust may increase the bond
stress by increasing roughness of the bar surface while a large
amount of rust may decrease the bond stress due to loose rust.
The amount of rust less than 4% seem to play a role in
increasing roughness rather than loosening which resulted in
increase of bond stress.

References
ACI Manual of Concrete Practice (1994). Materials and General Properties
of Concrete. ACI Manual of Concrete Practice, PART 1, pp. 222R 1-30.
Al-Sulaimani, G.J., Kaleemullah, M., Basunbul, I.A., and Rasheeduzzafa.
(1990). Influence of Corrosion and Cracking on Bond Behavior and
Strength of Reinforced Concrete Members. ACI Structural Journal,
Technical Paper, pp. 220-231.
ASTM G1-81 (1981). Preparing, Cleaning, and Evaluating Corrosion Test
Specimens. ASTM Standards, pp. 829-834.
ASTM C 234-91a (1991). Standard Test Method for Comparing Concretes
on the Basis of the Bond Developed with Reinforcing Steel. ASTM
Standards, pp. 153-157.
Malvar, L.J. (1995). Tensile and Bond Properties of GFRP Reinforcing
Bars. ACI Materials Journal, Technical Paper, Title No. 92-M30, pp.
276-284.
Soroushian, P., Choi, K.B., and Park, G.H. (1991). Bond of Deformed Bars
to Concrete: Effects of Confinement and Strength of Concrete. ACI
Materials Journal, Technical Paper, Title No. 88-M27, pp. 227-232.

41

(Received on May 9, 2003 / Accepted on October 6, 2003)